MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, my questions today are for the Premier.

Yesterday, I questioned the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture about the impasse that was occurring within the fishing industry, in the crab industry in the Province. At that time, Mr. Speaker, he said he was on the way to meet with processors and harvesters, and we know from media reports that that was a fruitless meeting yesterday that derived very little result at this stage.

My question, Mr. Speaker, today is for the Premier, and I ask: Is the government prepared to commit funds to try and get past this situation we have in the crab fishery today to ensure that we have an industry that works in Newfoundland and Labrador for the 2010 fishing season?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, future questions I will direct to the minister on this, but I just wanted to let hon. members know that the minister and his department have been very, very close to these issues. It has been commendable the way that the minister has documented everything –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: – has documented every single thing he has done. He has made sure that meetings that were called were held when they could be held. At any time there was a request for a meeting, he has even gone out into the field. He has talked to individuals who are involved in the industry, whether they happen to be harvesters, whether they happen to be processors, whether they happen to be fish plant workers.

We are doing everything we can, and he is doing everything he can as a minister and as a department to try and resolve this issue. As he said yesterday, it is up to the parties, first of all, to try and bring this together. Government has a role here, but it is a limited role. I think it is important that – and the members of the House I think already know and the people of the Province know and the people in the industry know that we are restricted by countervail issues, we are restricted by issues with NAFTA and we have to be very careful what our involvement is in resolving this process. The problem is by attempting to resolve the process - an interjection of money in some areas is fine, it is within the rules, but if we go too far as a government and we inject a significant amount of money, that is deemed to be in violation of free trade or a countervail issue, then we open up Pandora’s box. That can create huge problems in an awful lot of areas, in an area where we do not want to go. Now we all know that across the country, whether it happens to be the pulp and paper industry or other industries, cross border industries, that there are subsidies that go on, but it is a very, very delicate area.

So I have certainly been involved as Premier. Cabinet has been involved and fully informed. We have a Cabinet meeting tomorrow. It will be a matter of discussion, but I have full confidence in the minister and his department and I will direct future questions to the minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We did not give a whole lot of thought to NAFTA when we looked at Abitibi and what we were doing in that particular industry, Mr. Speaker.

My question remains, and that is, Mr. Speaker, today we have 20,000 people in this industry in the Province. We have communities that are affected by the impasse that is occurring. Yesterday, we had the Minister of Fisheries in this House state that he has two studies that show him that the viability of the industry for processors and harvesters do not exist under these current conditions.

Based on all of that, I ask the Premier again today: When will the government get involved in a substantial way and make investments in this industry to stabilize it and sustain it for the people that depend upon it?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, exactly the point of the exercise that has been entered into under the MOU. Let’s take for an example, Mr. Speaker, an announcement a couple of weeks ago said that the Gulf stocks had been reduced by 63 per cent. Mr. Speaker, imagine the impact if we said in this Province that the crab stocks were reduced by 50 per cent. What an impact that would have on the Province.

Mr. Speaker, we have no control over what happens through Mother Nature but we need certainly to plan for the future. We also can influence how things are marketed. Mr. Speaker, these are the things we are talking about within the MOU process. That is the long-term sustainability of this fishery. The most important thing now, Mr. Speaker - after our meeting she said nothing came out of it. I certainly do think something came out of it, but parties agreed to continue to talk. The processors and the union spoke last night. I am informed that their meeting again today at 1:00 o’clock, and I hope, Mr. Speaker, that something can come out of that because they are sitting at the table. These are the ones that have to make the decision to open this fishery, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the minister that we do not always have a lot of control over markets either and we have seen that in the last eighteen months in this country, but it has not stopped governments from investing in General Motors, in Chrysler, your government from investing in Kruger and Rolls-Royce.

I ask you today, Minister - stop being an observer; take some action in this industry - will your government invest in the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, she is wrong. We do have control. We do have control.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, we do have control over marketing.

The Department of Tourism - a successful campaign, successful marketing. Do you know why, Mr. Speaker? The partners that were involved came together as a unified group. Mr. Speaker, I am hoping that the processors, the union and government, through this MOU, can work that out so that we can be successful on the global stage around marketing, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are not talking about marketing; we are talking about markets, Minister. Put your head in the right place here. Put your head in the right place in this industry. You know yourself that -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Speaker just ruled and gave some information here that he asks for the members’ co-operation in asking questions and posing questions. I call on the Leader of the Opposition to be mindful of what the Speaker had brought forward to the House in asking her question or I will have to ask the hon. member to take her seat.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to pose my question to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. I would like to remind the minister that we are talking about markets here, not a marketing campaign for tourism.

Mr. Speaker, my question for the minister is this: We know that when you take no action you get no results. I would like to ask him today, Mr. Speaker, if his government is prepared to bring something to the table in the fishing industry in this Province and start putting some money into this industry like they have done with other industries.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, you find markets, and then you market. That is how you become successful.

The more important thing right now, Mr. Speaker, is that we have plant workers and harvesters that need a change in this industry. That is what the MOU was about; that is why we as a government invested $800,000 into that process. Before us right now, we need both parties, who are hopefully meeting right now, and we need a resolution to get this fishery started.

The other issues, once we get that fishery started, I can guarantee you that I, as minister, will push the agenda of that. I have to say that in our meetings yesterday some of the things that we discussed and that they are looking at putting forward, I think there is merit to it, and they can be added upon through this MOU process. Right now, the important thing is let’s get the fishery started.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We know what all that means: No money, no action for the 20,000 people that are affected.

Mr. Speaker, my next question is for the Minister of Finance. Yesterday, in the House of Assembly, in response to questions regarding the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association he stated that he had submitted a proposal to them to encourage negotiations, and he was hopeful that they would be able to enter into a discussion. Mr. Speaker, I have since learned that the letter clearly indicates that the proposal that has been offered must be accepted or rejected in its entirety.

I would like to ask the minister today, Mr. Speaker: What type of approach is this to encourage discussions and negotiations and to get a settlement with the Province’s doctors?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday we submitted a proposal to the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association. We outlined the terms of an agreement that would be certainly fair and reasonable to the doctors and addresses a number of the concerns that they have, but would also be a deal that would be reasonable and fair to the taxpayers of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. The proposal has gone forward, we are encouraging the doctors to review it and to get back to us. We look forward to their response, and we feel that, in due course, an agreement will, in fact, be reached.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think the take it or leave it approach is not the ideal approach for negotiations.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Finance as well today, because he indicated in the current letter that he sent to physicians in the Province that the offer being made by his government was 46 per cent better than the 2002 arbitrated decision.

Mr. Speaker, this being the case I would like to ask the minister: Why have they flatly said no to arbitration for doctors when that is what they have been asking and what they wanted?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, what we do in this Province is we have elections every four years in which the people of the Province elect representatives to represent them and to govern this Province. That is how we are going to do it; we are not going to slough this off or devolve this to an arbitrator. Somebody has to stand for the public interest, for the interests of the people of the Province. This Province –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, this Province has always needed someone to champion the public interest against very powerful economic forces such as the Government of Canada, the oil companies, the powerful forestry companies and those who have economic might. One thing I have learned in the last six years is that this government and this Province now have that champion in the current Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we saw the champion yesterday when he was reading the e-mail from his hockey buddy who was a doctor talking about the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association being a house divided.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, we have seen houses divided here before. We have seen members on the other side divided when the Member for Lewisporte had to come back and apologize to the caucus, and Mr. Manning was kicked out of the caucus. I say, Mr. Speaker, they know a little bit about houses divided.

My question to the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker, is certainly this, I ask the minister: How does he expect to have a fruitful negotiation with physicians in the Province when he is offering them a take it or leave it deal? What room is there for discussion in a deal like that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, we have offered a complete package to the NLMA in response to a complete package that they forwarded to us. What we are sending here is not something that can be cherry-picked, that they can take parts of it and reject other parts of it. This is a total package.

We look forward to them coming back to us and sitting down at the table with us so we can have a discussion. We can have what is called collective bargaining. That is the way we do things in this Province.

We accept our responsibilities that we have been elected to do. We are going to negotiate and we are going to protect the public interest. We are not going to pass it on to some arbitrator because we are responsible to the taxpayers of this Province; we are responsible to the people of the Province. We are going to be accountable. We are going to stand in this House and respond to questions from the Opposition and respond to questions from the people of the Province as to what we do. We are not going to devolve that to some arbitrator who is responsible to no one.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, when government brought forward legislation to expropriate AbitibiBowater’s assets in Central Newfoundland, the Premier assured the people of the Province that our Legislature was paramount and that the company would receive their own legal opinions advising them of that authority. We now know that AbitibiBowater has filed an NAFTA lawsuit seeking $500 million in compensation for those actions.

I ask the Premier today: Why are we facing this legal challenge under the North American Free Trade Agreement if our Legislature was paramount and you were so confident that AbitibiBowater did not have a case for compensation?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, we never thought for one minute that Abitibi would just accept this and that would be the end of it, and that we were going to go in and basically expropriate their assets and they would say thank you, very much and walk away.

You know why this is done. We called you and your colleagues to a meeting in our office, and we explained to you the full implications of this. I remember you being in the boardroom in the office whereby you agreed that this was a good idea. We then had all of our officials available and we made them available to you, I think, in the caucus room whereby we explained all the implications. The House Leader was there at the same time; he had some very good questions which were asked and answered. This was a process that we were all in agreement with, and it was a good process.

Let me tell you, if we had not expropriated those assets, we would be in a mess today because what they would have done is one of two things. They would have sold them off to some other interest, and we would have been left high and dry and our workers and the environmental issues, none of those would have been resolved; or otherwise they would have gone bankrupt and they would have lost everything and we would not have had anything.

Now, we have it all. We have expropriated the assets. If we have an obligation for some of the plant and equipment, as is indicated in the legislation, then we will pay that. The hon. member opposite was completely in agreement with this, and she knows that this is probably one of best actions this government has ever taken in the interest of the people.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the Premier to direct his remarks to the Chair from here on in Question Period.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier, I can assure him, that there was no discussions on those days in his boardroom about 500-million-dollar lawsuits under the NAFTA agreement.

Mr. Speaker, the federal government acts as a representative in fighting this matter before the courts, and they will be responsible for the $500 million should we lose the case; however, we also know that they will be seeking reimbursement from the Province.

I ask the Premier: What recent discussions have you had with the federal government on this matter, and have they indicated how any legal bills or compensation will be paid out?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member opposite thinks we are going to pay $500 million to Abitibi she must be losing her mind. Under no circumstances do we have any intention of paying out any 500-million-dollar lawsuit. Now if they want to rely on her questions to the House when they present their NAFTA argument, that is all very fine, but it will not carry any weight or any water, I can tell you right now.

The chair of Abitibi himself at one point in time indicated that this was worth $300 million. At another point in the negotiation, they agreed to negotiate for less. At another point, the federal government had been involved in trying to get this resolved, because the federal government are the ones that are on the hook for this at the end of the day. They have indicated that they are prepared to put some money up to get it resolved. What we are trying to do, and we have throughout this negotiation, is protect the interests of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador because Abitibi owes us anywhere from $200 million to $300 million in environmental liabilities for the mess that they left us, in addition to the severance for the workers that have paid, in addition to what we as a government have put into Grand Falls-Windsor and the Central Newfoundland region.

So we have done, if I might say so myself, an exemplary job of protecting the interests of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and they can take it to The Hague or the Supreme Court of Canada, or whatever court in the world or in the galaxy they want to take it to, and we will fight them to the very end, I can guarantee you that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly hope we never have to pay out $500 million to Abitibi because, judging from the situation we find ourselves in now, we are going to have to pay out a great deal in environmental cleanup as it is.

Mr. Speaker, in the Estimates for the Department of Natural Resources, it lists a figure of $8.3 million spent last year for professional services under the energy policy. This jumped dramatically from the $373,000 that was originally budgeted. As confirmed by the Department of Natural Resources, this money was used for legal fees related to AbitibiBowater’s NAFTA challenge and associated litigations.

I ask the Premier today: What is the breakdown of these legal fees, who was paid with this money, and does it include any third party legal costs that the Province was ordered to pay?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources and Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we going to do the Estimates early this year; we are going to do them during Question Period.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, there were $8 million of professional costs associated with the expropriation of the Abitibi assets in the Province. Mr. Speaker, a considerable amount of that was with regard to legal advice we received, first of all, around the expropriation itself with regard to the NAFTA challenge. Mr. Speaker, there were also costs associated with remediation issues left behind, particularly in the Buchans area with regard to the environmental situation that we are dealing with there.

Mr. Speaker, I am not at liberty at this point in time to release any more detail than that. There is an established process for accessing that information, and I encourage the Leader of the Opposition to use it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House we questioned the Minister of Health about the plane that was owned by Nalcor, and in response the minister said he saw no reference to or had any reason to believe that the Nalcor plane was utilized for air ambulance. Meanwhile, health board notes from back in 1982 state that a number one priority for the plane stationed in Labrador was for medical evacuation.

Clearly, the mandate for the plane was for air ambulance service. It can be air ambulance ready today. In light of this information, I ask the minister: Will you initiate a new review taking into account this plane was placed in Labrador, is there today, and can be used for medical emergencies?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources and Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, let me begin my answer by providing information that I was requested yesterday. The CF(L)Co’s King Air had 400 hours of flying time last year. Mr. Speaker, that plane is owned by CF(L)Co and is used to do the business of that company in Labrador. From time to time, Mr. Speaker, that plane, when it has been available, has been used for medical emergencies.

Mr. Speaker, that practice will continue, but this plane is primarily for the use of that company, as you can tell from the 400 hours of airtime. It is used extensively to ensure that the operations in Churchill Falls are done in an efficient way, and that generation station is maintained and the business of CF(L)Co is done properly in the Province. The plane is not always in Labrador, Mr. Speaker. Sometimes it is in Montreal, sometimes it is St. John’s, nor is it maintained at twenty-four hour readiness. If the plane is in Labrador, and it is available, and it is needed for medical emergencies, Mr. Speaker, it will continue to be used for such.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, the Rural Secretariat is a government entity that is meant to advance the sustainability of rural Newfoundland and Labrador. According to government, the vision of the secretariat is to sustain regions with healthy, educated and prosperous people living in safe, inclusive communities. It is supposed to be a focal point for the provincial government to work with the regions of the Province, and we understand the Rural Secretariat was not consulted in the moving of the air ambulance out of the St. Anthony region.

So I ask the minister again, today: Why were they not consulted, and why was the mandate of the Rural Secretariat ignored in the decision that leads to the demise of this region of our Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I have indicated on numerous occasions, Mr. Speaker, this review arose as a result of two incidents in Labrador prior to December, and then unfortunately we had a third incident in the recent past.

Mr. Speaker, the situations in Labrador resulted in questioning of the provision of air ambulance service. So what we looked at, Mr. Speaker, was a situation that required urgent attention. There was no indication at that time that there were any problems elsewhere in the Province, and subsequent we have found out that the St. John’s aircraft and charter aircraft more than adequately serve the Island portion of the Province.

The problems were in Labrador, Mr. Speaker. So the review was conducted in relation to: How do we provide services in relation to Northern Newfoundland and Labrador? That was the context of the review. The review came back, Mr. Speaker, clearly indicated that the central location for this plane would be Happy Valley-Goose Bay. Again, as I have explained on numerous occasions, that is justified both by the flight statistics, the population statistics and also the industrialization in Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits & White Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, thank you.

We live in a harsh environment and there are many instances when planes can take off out of St. Anthony but cannot land. I know just this weekend we did three medevacs out of St. Anthony where the plane that needed to come to St. Anthony airport could not get in, and therefore these three medevacs obviously could not take place.

I ask the minister: Why weren’t these environmental conditions examined and the impact that removing the air ambulance service will have on the Northern Peninsula, especially during the winter and spring months?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Again, as I have indicated on numerous occasions, what we have to look at is the use of our resources in the best possible way and the most efficient and effective way to serve the residents of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is having difficulty hearing the hon. minister. I ask members for their co-operation.

Order, please!

The hon. minister.

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What we have to look at is how do we best serve the residents of this Province? Mr. Speaker, we cannot place an air ambulance in every town, city and village in this Province. What we had to look at is how do we address the situations that arise? We have a situation, Mr. Speaker, where there are approximately 26,000 people in Labrador. We have five mining sites in Labrador West. We have the potential development of the Lower Churchill where there could be 2,000-3,000 people working. We have the North Coast of Labrador, Mr. Speaker, which is isolated many times.

So what we have, Mr. Speaker, is a harsh environment and a harsh land. We have to use these scarce resources to best protect our people. We feel, Mr. Speaker, that the move of this airplane and the medical flight services team to Happy Valley-Goose Bay will protect the interests of the people of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House of Assembly the Premier continued to make inflammatory comments regarding the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association, comments that do nothing to solve the contractual dispute that they now find themselves in. Mr. Speaker, these types of actions will not help us to retain doctors in the Province and that, Mr. Speaker, is what I am most concerned about.

Mr. Speaker, my question for the Premier today is: Will he change his attitude to a more conciliatory one and work towards a resolution with doctors so that we can move on and focus on patient care?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask members for their co-operation. The Chair is having difficulty hearing the questions asked and in some cases the answers provided.

The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I have no control over e-mails or correspondence that are sent to me that represent the views or the opinions of doctors within the NLMA and issues that are long-standing issues that they have had with the association. So, that is not an attempt by me. The e-mail is not solicited. It is not attempted by me to be divisive in any way whatsoever, but from a perspective of a change of attitude, I mean we have put $79 million on the table, a significant offer, a significant amount of money.

The hon. member opposite - and I will speak through you, Mr. Speaker, if I can control myself today - thinks that money grows on little trees that we have up in the Department of Finance and that there is always all kinds of money to go around. As the Minister of Finance has said, we have a responsibility to the people of the Province, but we also have a responsibility to the medical profession, to be fair. We put a very generous offer on the table, an offer that is significantly in excess of what the arbitration award was the last time; that covers their issues, that deals with Atlantic parity. I think if I remember correctly, we are up to 98 per cent Atlantic parity. We have even put in money that they did not ask for, for malpractice and for reimbursement, for continuing legal education. We are doing everything we can to get this resolved but we have to do it within the limits and the restraints of the public purse. So it is up to us to protect the health care system in the Province, but also to protect the financial interests of the people of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I did not ask the Premier about financial issues, but that was his answer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS MICHAEL: The Premier, in his responding to me, Mr. Speaker, talked about you get an e-mail and we have no control over what we get, but we do have control over how we use things, Mr. Speaker. I, too, get all kinds of e-mails. I do not bring them here to the House of Assembly. The Premier chose to use the e-mail that he used yesterday.

My question to him, Mr. Speaker, is - and through you I ask this question: Will he stop his tactic of trying to pit doctors against one another and allow his Minister of Finance to negotiate with the NLMA?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite does not understand collective bargaining. Collective bargain is a difficult enough exercise as it is, but we have a united front here. We agree as a Cabinet, we agree as a caucus, we agree as a government as to exactly what our position is, and we put that forward to the other side. Now, when you are dealing with a House that is divided then it is impossible to have them in a situation whereby they can accept an agreement. So, divisions and differences of opinion within an organization are very, very important.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: The doctor in question here, who represents, I would suggest to you, a significant number of doctors, has had these long-standing issues for over a decade, as far as I know. He can be asked, he can confirm that. So, when we are trying to reach an agreement with the doctors and the physicians in the Province we need to be dealing with an association that has a mandate from its members.

Now, Rob Ritter and company do not have a mandate from its members, because we happen to know that there are members that do not agree with what they are doing. So to the best of our ability we are putting our best position forward to try and get this resolved. We cannot do anything else, but these…

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier has answered the question that I asked, and his answer is no, he is going to continue the tactics that he started.

Mr. Speaker, if the government is so open to negotiations with the NLMA, then why did the letter that went to them yesterday start with an ultimatum? I have to ask the Premier, does he really consider a letter that starts with an ultimatum as bargaining in good faith with an organization that has been elected by its members to represent them?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, we are conducting a negotiation here, and in the negotiation we have offered a package to reach a deal. We cannot have the other side going back and saying that we are going to take (a) or we are going to take (c) or we are going to take (d) but nothing else. We want to get a complete deal. We want to get an agreement so this comes to an end and life can go back to normal for everyone, and I am sure the doctors want that as well.

So, what we do is we put forward a proposal in response to their proposal, and we have invited the doctors to come back to the table. We will sit, we will talk, we will negotiate, and hopefully we will get a deal that is, as I said, that is fair to the taxpayers of the Province and also addresses the concerns that the doctors have raised.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allotted for questions and answers has expired.